A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control
Abstract Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer‐based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019-06-01
|
| Series: | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.182 |
| _version_ | 1828745421143408640 |
|---|---|
| author | Roshan Varghese Gary R. Burnett Audrey Souverain Avinash Patil Ana G. Gossweiler |
| author_facet | Roshan Varghese Gary R. Burnett Audrey Souverain Avinash Patil Ana G. Gossweiler |
| author_sort | Roshan Varghese |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer‐based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single‐centre, randomised, three‐treatment, three‐period, examiner‐blind, crossover study compared a carbomer‐based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA‐based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB0–12) in participants with a well‐made and at least moderately well‐fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty‐four participants were included in the modified intent‐to‐treat population. AOB0–12 favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB0–12 for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer‐based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:02:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a635804e7b9c4ca9a011ac4681931dcc |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2057-4347 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:02:54Z |
| publishDate | 2019-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-a635804e7b9c4ca9a011ac4681931dcc2022-12-22T02:13:30ZengWileyClinical and Experimental Dental Research2057-43472019-06-015327628310.1002/cre2.182A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive controlRoshan Varghese0Gary R. Burnett1Audrey Souverain2Avinash Patil3Ana G. Gossweiler4GSK Consumer Healthcare Weybridge UKGSK Consumer Healthcare Weybridge UKGSK Consumer Healthcare Nyon SwitzerlandDepartment of Statistics Syneos Health Pune IndiaOral Health Research Institute Indiana University School of Dentistry Indianapolis IndianaAbstract Unlike other oral care products, there are limited technologies in the denture adhesive category with the majority based on polymethyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride (PVM/MA) polymer. Carbomer‐based denture adhesives are less well studied, and there are few clinical studies directly comparing performance of denture adhesives based on different technologies. This single‐centre, randomised, three‐treatment, three‐period, examiner‐blind, crossover study compared a carbomer‐based denture adhesive (Test adhesive) with a PVM/MA‐based adhesive (Reference adhesive) and no adhesive using incisal bite force measurements (area over baseline over 12 hr; AOB0–12) in participants with a well‐made and at least moderately well‐fitting complete maxillary denture. Eligible participants were randomised to a treatment sequence and bit on a force transducer with increasing force until their maxillary denture dislodged. This procedure was performed prior to treatment application (baseline) and at 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hr following application. Forty‐four participants were included in the modified intent‐to‐treat population. AOB0–12 favoured both Test adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.12 lbs; 95% CI [1.25, 3.00]; p < 0.0001) and Reference adhesive to No adhesive (difference: 2.76 lbs; 95% CI [1.89, 3.63]; p < 0.0001). There was a numerical difference in AOB0–12 for Test versus Reference adhesive (−0.63 lbs; [−1.51, 0.25]); however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1555). Treatments were generally well tolerated. Both PVM/MA and carbomer‐based denture adhesives demonstrated statistically significantly superior denture retention compared with no adhesive over 12 hr, with no statistically significant difference between adhesives.https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.182adhesivesbite forcedenturesedentulousincisorrandomised controlled trial |
| spellingShingle | Roshan Varghese Gary R. Burnett Audrey Souverain Avinash Patil Ana G. Gossweiler A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control Clinical and Experimental Dental Research adhesives bite force dentures edentulous incisor randomised controlled trial |
| title | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
| title_full | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
| title_fullStr | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
| title_full_unstemmed | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
| title_short | A randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no‐adhesive control |
| title_sort | randomised bite force study assessing two currently marketed denture adhesive products compared with no adhesive control |
| topic | adhesives bite force dentures edentulous incisor randomised controlled trial |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.182 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT roshanvarghese arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT garyrburnett arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT audreysouverain arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT avinashpatil arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT anaggossweiler arandomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT roshanvarghese randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT garyrburnett randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT audreysouverain randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT avinashpatil randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol AT anaggossweiler randomisedbiteforcestudyassessingtwocurrentlymarketeddentureadhesiveproductscomparedwithnoadhesivecontrol |